Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Worhsam <br />Discussion ensued by continued to argued his position and read <br />the developer’s agreement regarding the conditions that have been met. <br /> <br />Bruce Barkett, <br /> Esq., representing the applicant, told the Board they are not <br />being asked to make policy, but to decide what was actually done. He read provisions of <br />Chapter 380 stating thatnothing can limit or modify the rights of any person to complete <br />the development of a DRI. <br /> <br />Attorney Shubin <br />does not believed that the intent of the Florida Legislature or <br />the County was for there to be a development order that would allow exemption from <br />concurrency requirements and that would apply to everyone. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Bryan agreed with Mr. Worsham. <br /> <br />Chairman Wheeler commented that approving this request meant treating this <br />DRI differently than other developments. He wanted to try to treat everybody equally, <br />regardless of whether they are a DRI, or a PD. He felt they should vest the same way as a <br />PD, and he said he did not believe Waterway Village was vested. <br /> <br />Bruce Barkett, Esq., <br />said his applicant was not trying to become exempt from <br />concurrency. He asked what improvements they needed to satisfy concurrency and if <br />they needed to sign a developer’s agreement. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Bowden agreed with Chairman Wheeler stating that she was trying <br />to make a fair decision, but she did not believe concurrency was met. <br /> <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Davis, SECONDED <br />by Vice Chair Bowden, the Board unanimously found <br />December 5, 2006 <br />30 <br /> <br />